Rick, I try to answer the posts in the right order and it takes some time, so please, be patient.

I don’t think that I have ever read such a short message that brought so many thoughts!
The first thought is that I hope that you are able to do better guesses / conclusions in other areas

More seriously, it probably shows how big the difference is between on one hand my cultural subgoup and yours including many of the debaters on this site. I guess (hopefully better than you) that your comment relates to the problem of raising children without punishment. I can tell you that among my close relatives and my close friends there is never practiced backwards looking punishment, i.e. punishment because of the child “deserves” it but only actions that were meant to deter from future bad behavior (but of course without any physical or psychical violence). In a wider part of my social subgroup, I don’t know, but I have never heard of anyone having a different attitude. This I put in relation to what I a few years ago read in a discussion on a USA based philosophical professional forum. They were discussing (informally) how to punish disobedient teenagers. I thought it was horrifying.

But to answer your question. I have three children and some grandchildren and my relation to them has always been good (and also, they confirm it )
Nils

Thanks for responding to my question nils. I realize that you are communicating with multiple people here, and it can be difficult responding to everyone.

Actually, I asked if you have children, not because of punishment. I was thinking about how you would teach your children about being responsible for the choices they make, good and bad, if you teach them that they aren't really making choices. As my son has grown up(he's 18), I've tried to show him how to make good choices. I've explained to him, with different levels of understanding as he's growing up, that all of his choices have consequences.

It's such an important part of a child growing up and becoming a productive person, that I just can't understand how you raised children without teaching them there are consequences to their actions.

First a number of statements that I believe are true. I give them without motivation. It would take a book to argument in detail but I have discussed some of it earlier in this thread.

1. There is no No free will. None truly deserves to be praised or blamed (even if there are good reasons to to do that sometimes).
2. The world may be deterministic or indeterministic but there is no free will anyway. I think it is indeterministic, but that is unimportant in the free will discussion.
3. Below I assume that the world is deterministic (the argument will be clearer then)
4. Can we choose between different alternatives then? There is an external and internal view (Ref T. Nagel)
5. In the external, outside view, it is obvious that an agent will do what she is determined to do, there is no choice.
6. In the internal, inside view we have no possibility to know what we will do before we have done it. We can and ought to deliberate, weighting pros and cons and finding the best answer. Determinism doesn’t matter.

7. We need morality, objective or subjective. Morality is needed in societies.
8. To enforce morality we have to threaten with punishment and in worst cases, punish.
9. Those that are unlucky, depending on heredity and environment, not to obey the moral rules, don’t deserve to be punished but we have to do it because of 7.
10. We inherit the disposition to have reactive feelings to those do bad things to us, feeling hatred and wanting revenge if we are hurt in some way.

That was the background to my view and these are my conclusions:

Persons that are discussing and determining the rules that govern society should be aware of that persons are not truly responsible, don’t deserve to be punished. I am thinking of politicians and philosophers and persons that are interested and may be influential, as you and me. Therefore, among other things, the aim of punishment is to deter others from crime, rehabilitate etc, not to revenge.

In our everyday life we need a moral and so we have to take responsibility. We don’t have to bother about determinism and the issue of free will. We can act according our intuition on how to handle other persons. It is natural to feel hatred and wanting revenge but when we get time analyse the situation to we should try to mitigate those feeling knowing that the person that hurt us isn’t evil in herself, just had bad luck. That the philosophers may have to tell us.

This amounts to a kind of dualism. On one hand the external position you need to build a society and define morality, on the other hand the everyday, less reflective actions, based on the internal view.

When you and I teach our children when they are young we can only have the internal perspective. The external perspective has to wait until they grow up. But we should teach them to avoid hatred and revenge.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
In the philosophical litterature there are several definitions of free will. How can you say that any of these are wrong.

I am interested in Free WIll as a base for moral desert. As Galen Strawsson says: It is a matter of punishment of hell and the bliss of heaven.

The first step of understanding free will is to understand what it is at its core and that is simply the act of choosing between available choices.
So, yes, computers do that.

So then you have to change you definition?
“#361 … Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
HOW isn't relevant as much as WHY. “

Next step, HOW do they do that?
Computers choose based on programming, programming done by an exterior source.
They don't understand anything other than binary code that drives their process of "choice".
They Can't go against their programming ( programming being analogues to the human "nature & Nurture" thing).

To say that computer only understand binary codes doesn’t seem correct to me. A chess playing program understands the possible draws. To reduce that to binary code, to logical gates or motion of electrons is impossible. The program chooses between different representations of draws in the same way as humans do even if the representations are different.

Humans, however, CAN and DO choose to go against their "programming".

The moment a person, who is exposed to violence all their life, choose NOT to be violent.
The moment a person that has been rick all their life, choose to give up wealth.
The moment a person choose to disobey their parents, even knowing it is NOT in their best interest.
The moment a person KNOWS that act A) is wrong and commits act A).
Etc, etc, etc.

This doesn’t show that humans can or need to go against there “programming”. For any of these examples there is a possible story explaining the behaviour. Take the first. The person P has a desire not to be violent but this desire is not strong and the circumstances have been unfortunate all the time but that changed today. Etc.

This is why we hold people accountable that are deemed mentally "competent" and do NOT hold those that are NOT mentally competent, Because we understand that conscious CHOICE to do something that is wrong.
If people do NOT choose their actions, it means that there was no ability to do otherwise AT ALL.
When a man rapes a child, he didn't choose to rape. He had no choice BUT to rape, he is but a "victim" of his environment and his genetic make-up. He can't be held accountable for his actions since he had no choice in the matter.

Even if the world is deterministic and even if the physical is the only thing that exists, persons deliberate and choose. Pereboom has written a long article about this that I find convincing. Having an internal perspective, it is according to our intuition.

Of course, what needs to be explained is why doesn't everyone rape or at least, why don't people with similar ( no such thing as identical) environmental and hereditary issues, also do that.

The answer is, as you indicate, the H&I is never identical. No more is required or has to be explained.
Nils

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

There is still input and output happening. What a program does given a particular input might be randomised into particular responses. That input may not be predictable, which causes a program to carry out a different set of instructions rather than the ones it otherwise would have done (eg a person jumping in front of a computer controlled car which is detected via hardware (input) generating the programmed response in the computer to immediately brake rather than continue accelerating), there is no real decision being made by the program itself. Self learning is simply more sophisticated routines and algorithms, but there is not the freedom there to explore whatever topic it desires, indeed programs don't have desires except to carry out the desires of their programmers.

I don’t see how you define “decision” so that computers are excluded and humans included without being ad hoc. Both are programmed in one sense. Both can learn from experience. The computer can’t decide its ultimate goal but neither can humans.

Compare this to Judeo-Christian framework, where a story is told of our creator giving us a choice, a real choice, to either follow Him or not. We were able to follow our own path, one He did not desire us to pursue for it pushed Him out of the picture. We desired to follow our own path in life, and THAT is why there is so much wrong in the world (so the story goes). Programs on the other hand merely run according to instructions they are given, aren't the true authors of their choices, indeed a robot would have no desire or preference over killing people compared to not killing except any restraints and/or predispositions (ie weightings) the creator may have programmed in.

Yes, I know, and that’s one of the main reasons why I don’t believe in Christianity. I find it incoherent. Peter van Inwagen is on of the most prominent free will philosophers. He has shown that free will is not compatible with determinism but lately that it isn’t compatible with indeterminism either. He concludes that free will is a mystery but as a Christian, in the choice between no free will and a mystery, he chooses the latter. I chose the former.

In summary there is no REAL intelligence when it comes to computers, hence why the field is called artificial intelligence. Computerized appliances, phones, devices, machines, etc are made to APPEAR intelligent, but it's all mere appearance. Perhaps you've been hoodwinked by how well something has been programmed to believe true intelligence actually exists, but it's merely artificial and always will be unless consciousness is had, or the omega factor (if you have watched astroboy), which allows one to make a free response of their own choosing.

Of course there is no real intelligence in computers today. But they have some components. Programs have for instance made inventions, inventions that nobody did know about beforehand, and definitely not the programmers. To those who believe that evolution could create intelligence it seems reasonable that humans also, in the long run, can create computers with REAL intelligence (anyhow you define it).
Nils

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself

You all the time misses that what’s inside you (yourself) also is caused, at least partly, by the outside environment earlier.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.

The whole discussion is about this “independent mind”. What cause that in you opinion, when and how is it created? What I try to show with my example Em (below) is that there is no possibility to have an “independent mind” (at least if there is no God)

I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.[

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1).

What does t(n) and t(n+1) represent? For the sake of discussion, I will assume t(n) and t(n+1) is now and in the future. If it means something else, please explain, and I will adjust my responses accordingly

t(n) represents any time after t(1) and t(n+1) represents any time after t(n), before or after present time.

How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else.

If you are saying how the person (Em) is today is determined strictly by whatever he was as an embryo, I disagree. Since evolving from an embryo to a person he has developed a brain and this brain allows him to behave and act contrary to whatever he was as an embryo.

Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.

Again; I believe the development of a brain allows us to act contrary to all of that.

I wrote:
“From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.”
To explain. For any time t(y) it is valid that how Em is at t(y) is determined by how Em was at an earlier time t(x) and the environment between t(x) and t(y). You may set time t(x) to the time just after conception, where all that determine Em was heredity (t(x) = t(1)). How Em is at t(y) is then determined by heredity and all environmental causes between t(1) and t(y). If you chose t(y) to prensent time you get that Em now is exclusively determined by H&E. Hence, there is nothing that can cause an “independent self”.
I think this shows that there is no room for an “independent self.” You say there is. If so, it would make our discussion more fruitful if you show where and why my reasoning goes wrong, and besides how you argue that this independent self can come into being. Does it have any causes or is it created out of nothing?

it seems to me you are looking at people like artificial neural networks.
Like programmer saying: Hey, network, I programmed you, go and learn based on what you encounter (environment).

Hi 1over137,
I rather think that if computers use some method as artificial neural networks they will be a bit more human, learning from experience.

In your example with Em, and in your thinking, (what free will is), Em will never have free will.
It all starts with definition of free will...

Yes, and I use to define free will as a feature that doesn’t depend of sheer luck and which makes you truly deserve blame if you break any moral rules. But there are other definitions as well but they are not important, I think.

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

There is still input and output happening. What a program does given a particular input might be randomised into particular responses. That input may not be predictable, which causes a program to carry out a different set of instructions rather than the ones it otherwise would have done (eg a person jumping in front of a computer controlled car which is detected via hardware (input) generating the programmed response in the computer to immediately brake rather than continue accelerating), there is no real decision being made by the program itself. Self learning is simply more sophisticated routines and algorithms, but there is not the freedom there to explore whatever topic it desires, indeed programs don't have desires except to carry out the desires of their programmers.

I don’t see how you define “decision” so that computers are excluded and humans included without being ad hoc. Both are programmed in one sense. Both can learn from experience. The computer can’t decide its ultimate goal but neither can humans.

Compare this to Judeo-Christian framework, where a story is told of our creator giving us a choice, a real choice, to either follow Him or not. We were able to follow our own path, one He did not desire us to pursue for it pushed Him out of the picture. We desired to follow our own path in life, and THAT is why there is so much wrong in the world (so the story goes). Programs on the other hand merely run according to instructions they are given, aren't the true authors of their choices, indeed a robot would have no desire or preference over killing people compared to not killing except any restraints and/or predispositions (ie weightings) the creator may have programmed in.

Yes, I know, and that’s one of the main reasons why I don’t believe in Christianity. I find it incoherent. Peter van Inwagen is on of the most prominent free will philosophers. He has shown that free will is not compatible with determinism but lately that it isn’t compatible with indeterminism either. He concludes that free will is a mystery but as a Christian, in the choice between no free will and a mystery, he chooses the latter. I chose the former.

In summary there is no REAL intelligence when it comes to computers, hence why the field is called artificial intelligence. Computerized appliances, phones, devices, machines, etc are made to APPEAR intelligent, but it's all mere appearance. Perhaps you've been hoodwinked by how well something has been programmed to believe true intelligence actually exists, but it's merely artificial and always will be unless consciousness is had, or the omega factor (if you have watched astroboy), which allows one to make a free response of their own choosing.

Of course there is no real intelligence in computers today. But they have some components. Programs have for instance made inventions, inventions that nobody did know about beforehand, and definitely not the programmers. To those who believe that evolution could create intelligence it seems reasonable that humans also, in the long run, can create computers with REAL intelligence (anyhow you define it).
Nils

It seems to me, what you ascribe as being "intelligent" is merely an artificial intelligence. As I understand you, you don't believe intelligence really exists. Certainly, not like I do, nor like Kenny does, nor most people would. Rather, the artificial intelligence had with computers and robotics is for you the same type of "intelligence" we humans possess, only perhaps we possess such on a much grander scale. Nonetheless, humans, programs, both responses for you are all mechanically generated. Given this, there is an impasse in any discussion we'd have regarding intelligence, for the intelligence I speak of simply doesn't exist for you. The best we can have in your pov is an artifical intelligence, that is, a mere appearance of intelligence.

Nonetheless, it seems to me, consciousness is a much harder kettle of fish to your views, and such can be treated separately from intelligence. You experience the world, experience your thoughts and reflect. Your subjective experience, the direct and immediate experience of the world are directly your own. Yet, what is this? How does it arise?

It seems to me, until you unpack and understand what consciousness is, until we know how consciousness works (if indeed if it even makes sense to ask how consciousness works), that our "will" which seems built upon such and indeed any conscious decisions we make, the strongest position one could logically and rationally take against the existence of free will is agnosticism.

That is, given our basic intuitions and first-hand experience with our own self, it is epistemically warranted to believe free will exists. Indeed, it is here warranted in much the same way we believe and accept that an external physical reality exists. Your belief that there exists no free will lacks any warrant, therefore there is no rational justification for someone to accept no free will existing as true. Indeed, there is no rationality at all, for such requires intelligence and as we've covered, intelligence for you doesn't really exist except in an artificial manner.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

There is still input and output happening. What a program does given a particular input might be randomised into particular responses. That input may not be predictable, which causes a program to carry out a different set of instructions rather than the ones it otherwise would have done (eg a person jumping in front of a computer controlled car which is detected via hardware (input) generating the programmed response in the computer to immediately brake rather than continue accelerating), there is no real decision being made by the program itself. Self learning is simply more sophisticated routines and algorithms, but there is not the freedom there to explore whatever topic it desires, indeed programs don't have desires except to carry out the desires of their programmers.

I don’t see how you define “decision” so that computers are excluded and humans included without being ad hoc. Both are programmed in one sense. Both can learn from experience. The computer can’t decide its ultimate goal but neither can humans.

Compare this to Judeo-Christian framework, where a story is told of our creator giving us a choice, a real choice, to either follow Him or not. We were able to follow our own path, one He did not desire us to pursue for it pushed Him out of the picture. We desired to follow our own path in life, and THAT is why there is so much wrong in the world (so the story goes). Programs on the other hand merely run according to instructions they are given, aren't the true authors of their choices, indeed a robot would have no desire or preference over killing people compared to not killing except any restraints and/or predispositions (ie weightings) the creator may have programmed in.

Yes, I know, and that’s one of the main reasons why I don’t believe in Christianity. I find it incoherent. Peter van Inwagen is on of the most prominent free will philosophers. He has shown that free will is not compatible with determinism but lately that it isn’t compatible with indeterminism either. He concludes that free will is a mystery but as a Christian, in the choice between no free will and a mystery, he chooses the latter. I chose the former.

In summary there is no REAL intelligence when it comes to computers, hence why the field is called artificial intelligence. Computerized appliances, phones, devices, machines, etc are made to APPEAR intelligent, but it's all mere appearance. Perhaps you've been hoodwinked by how well something has been programmed to believe true intelligence actually exists, but it's merely artificial and always will be unless consciousness is had, or the omega factor (if you have watched astroboy), which allows one to make a free response of their own choosing.

Of course there is no real intelligence in computers today. But they have some components. Programs have for instance made inventions, inventions that nobody did know about beforehand, and definitely not the programmers. To those who believe that evolution could create intelligence it seems reasonable that humans also, in the long run, can create computers with REAL intelligence (anyhow you define it).
Nils

It seems to me, what you ascribe as being "intelligent" is merely an artificial intelligence. As I understand you, you don't believe intelligence really exists. Certainly, not like I do, nor like Kenny does, nor most people would. Rather, the artificial intelligence had with computers and robotics is for you the same type of "intelligence" we humans possess, only perhaps we possess such on a much grander scale. Nonetheless, humans, programs, both responses for you are all mechanically generated. Given this, there is an impasse in any discussion we'd have regarding intelligence, for the intelligence I speak of simply doesn't exist for you. The best we can have in your pov is an artifical intelligence, that is, a mere appearance of intelligence.

It seems to me that you define “intelligence” as something that pure physical things as computers and, in my view, humans can’t have. That’s making it simple to you. This isn’t an impasse, you just win by definition. My position is that you have to argue for this definition.

Nonetheless, it seems to me, consciousness is a much harder kettle of fish to your views, and such can be treated separately from intelligence. You experience the world, experience your thoughts and reflect. Your subjective experience, the direct and immediate experience of the world are directly your own. Yet, what is this? How does it arise?

I agree, consciousness may be the most difficult question in philosophy, but I don’t think that it is unsolvable. It is also a difficult question to you if you are not satisfied with the answer: God did it.

It seems to me, until you unpack and understand what consciousness is, until we know how consciousness works (if indeed if it even makes sense to ask how consciousness works), that our "will" which seems built upon such and indeed any conscious decisions we make, the strongest position one could logically and rationally take against the existence of free will is agnosticism.

I don’t see that the issue of free will is strongly related to consciousness. Much of our decisions are unconscious, even some that are morally relevant. There are indications that consciousness often is only some kind of report of what already has happened unconsciously. I often experience that myself.

That is, given our basic intuitions and first-hand experience with our own self, it is epistemically warranted to believe free will exists. Indeed, it is here warranted in much the same way we believe and accept that an external physical reality exists. Your belief that there exists no free will lacks any warrant, therefore there is no rational justification for someone to accept no free will existing as true. Indeed, there is no rationality at all, for such requires intelligence and as we've covered, intelligence for you doesn't really exist except in an artificial manner.

Our intuitions are an interesting discussion that I intend to bring up in a new thread, when I get time, soon hopefully. Now only, I think that free will is a metaphysical subject that can’t be treated epistemically only.

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.

What I try to show with my example Em (below) is that there is no possibility to have an “independent mind” (at least if there is no God)

How are you defining God? Something akin to one of the Abrahamic Gods (all knowing, powerful, creator of the Universe etc. etc.) And why do you feel this God is necessary in order for an independent mind to exist?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.

What I try to show with my example Em (below) is that there is no possibility to have an “independent mind” (at least if there is no God)

How are you defining God? Something akin to one of the Abrahamic Gods (all knowing, powerful, creator of the Universe etc. etc.) And why do you feel this God is necessary in order for an independent mind to exist?

My parenthesis about God was OT so I leave it. I prefer that you comment the other part of the sentence. If you don't understand and comment my example with Em it is diffucult to continue the discussion.
Nils

Nils wrote:
At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I understand what you were getting at here and I think you explained it most clearly this first time. The only way I can answer it though is to say a lot of us believe that our brains always (due to heredity then, I suppose) develop the ability to think independently and therefore have free will. Free will is in our genes in a way.

Nils wrote:
At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I understand what you were getting at here and I think you explained it most clearly this first time. The only way I can answer it though is to say a lot of us believe that our brains always (due to heredity then, I suppose) develop the ability to think independently and therefore have free will. Free will is in our genes in a way.

Or better put, "free will is apart of our nature." What our complete nature is comprised of however, such is up for debate.

Nonetheless, I'd add that there are certain elements to do with our nature that can't be easily dismissed, which to do so would be quite literally counter-intuitive. So then, if we are to dismiss them, then there must exist good positive arguments for doing so.

Nils wrote:
At time t1, say two weeks after conception, there is an embryo. It is the product of heredity and possibly some environmental influences, no free will. At t2, say a month later, it is the product of how it was at t1 and the environmental influences between t1 and t2, no free will. At t3 it is the product of how it was at t2 and the environmental influences between t2 and t3. No free will. So you can continue in small or big steps until you come to present time, say tn. But in the same way, there is no free will at tn, so never free will. Do you agree? If not, where am I going wrong?
Nils

I understand what you were getting at here and I think you explained it most clearly this first time. The only way I can answer it though is to say a lot of us believe that our brains always (due to heredity then, I suppose) develop the ability to think independently and therefore have free will. Free will is in our genes in a way.

Nicki, I think that the ability to think and decide is innate and determined by heredity. But when you deliberate you weight reasons pro and con and then you use your desires, preferences, memories, intuitions, etc., the totality of your mind. All of these were caused by some earlier external influences or possible inherited via the genes. I don’t understand what else could have influenced or caused them. So in which way you can think “independently” seems mysterious to me. It goes against my intuition and my (hopefully) rational thinking.

An example. My wife asks me if we shall go to Paris or go boating on our holiday. I think of a lot of practical considerations and find that both alternatives are possible. So, in some sense I’m free to choose any alternative. At the same time I have strong desire to go boating so I say so. I still was free to chose otherwise but was I free not to have a strong desire? I can’t see that. My wife could possible have changed my desire by telling that the weather could be cold and rainy. But without that external influence my strong desire would have remained. Was I free to change my desire, I wouldn’t say so. No free will in this case

This example is not meant to prove that there is no free will. Just to illustrate one case.

Nils, notice how you work from the premise that we are wholly physical. There are also a whole lot of assumptions being made, which need proving in and of themselves before you reach your conclusion. I think, it is at these various points -- or premises -- that Kenny and Nicki would likely disagree with you and therefore reject your conclusion.

I'll agree with you that free will, indeed consciousness itself, is mysterious. Yet, what we consider mysterious today doesn't necessarily mean it ought to be rejected as untrue, but is perhaps more reflective of our current state of knowledge. Consider that lightning seems to have been quite mysterious to various people in ancient times.

As for a modern example. I'm sure you're familiar with the double-slit experiment. When electrons or photons are fired through a double slit, what is the differentiating factor between whether you get a particle effect or wave disambiguation effect? Isn't this also quite mysterious? Yet, we don't say its not happening or untrue because we can't make sense of it.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.

How are you defining God? Something akin to one of the Abrahamic Gods (all knowing, powerful, creator of the Universe etc. etc.) And why do you feel this God is necessary in order for an independent mind to exist?

My parenthesis about God was OT so I leave it. I prefer that you comment the other part of the sentence. If you don't understand and comment my example with Em it is diffucult to continue the discussion.
Nils

the other part of your comment is full of t(1) t(x=+1) and a host of other algebra type symbols. I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying when you speak this way. Perhaps you can make your point differently, or perhaps this is something we can just agree to disagree on